A look at the ballot issues in Tuesday's election

There are several amendments on the November ballot. While some have been given significant attention, others have likely flown below the radar for most voters.

Today, we summarize the issues and offer our position.

n

Amendment 1: This would give the state greater flexibility when making investments, namely allowing "state investments in municipal securities possessing one of the top five highest long term ratings or the highest short term rating."

It also requires the state treasurer to get approval from the General Assembly to make different investments instead of asking voters directly each time.

The Senate supported the bill unanimously and the House with only one dissenting vote in proposing the amendment.

There are no estimated costs to this amendment, and increased interest revenue could total $2 million per year. Local entities would also not experience an increase in costs and could see an increase in interest revenue of at least $34,000 per year.

Our take: This makes sense. The state will still be limited in how it can invest funds. And while there should be a conservative approach with investing public dollars, these options should be available. Moreover, a check will remain in place with investment changes to be approved by the legislature.

We encourage a "Yes" vote.

n

Amendment 3: This amendment would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. We've previously written about this issue, and several columns have appeared on the newspaper's Opinion page.

The amendment removes prohibitions on purchasing, possessing, consuming, using, delivering, manufacturing and selling marijuana for those age 21 and older. It would also allow those with certain marijuana-related offenses to have their record expunged.

There are numerous reasons to oppose this amendment, which we believe would be disastrous for the state.

But here's just one.

Missouri's amendment would not only legalize recreational use, but it would add it in the state Constitution with 39 pages of vague and confusing language that could only be changed or updated with additional constitutional amendments. Even if the benefits of legalization outweighed the negatives -- which we believe evidence indicates they don't -- this is not the way to do it.

We encourage a "No" vote.

n

Amendment 4: The official ballot language reads: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize laws, passed before December 31, 2026, that increase minimum funding for a police force established by a state board of police commissioners to ensure such police force has additional resources to serve its communities?"

This amendment effectively only applies to the City of Kansas City since its law enforcement is overseen by the state-appointed Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners. This constitutional amendment would place a funding mandate on the city, directing 25% of the city's general revenue to its police department.

The law currently requires the city to spend at least 20% on its police department.

We believe in funding local police. There's no question about that. But we're dealing with an issue that involves a singular location in Missouri. Our general philosophy is this is not something that should be decided statewide via a constitutional amendment.

We encourage a "No" vote.

n

Amendment 5: The Missouri National Guard is currently under the state Department of Public Safety. This amendment would make the Guard its own department. Its estimated ongoing costs total $132,000 annually. There's no estimated costs or savings for local municipalities.

Currently, Missouri is one of two states where the National Guard does not operate under its own department.

We think its makes sense for the Guard to operate under its own department, providing a clear chain of command and streamlined communications during times of emergency. Under this structure, the adjutant general would be appointed by the governor and serve in his cabinet.

We encourage a "Yes" vote.

n

Finally, there is a question on the ballot for whether the state shall hold a Constitutional Convention. This question automatically comes before voters every 20 years because of a requirement in the constitution.

A Constitutional Convention is a big decision, and there would need to be overwhelming reasons for why it would be needed. The amendment process works. Frankly, it's probably too easy to get something on the ballot through the initiative process, but that's an editorial for another day.

We don't see the need for a Constitutional Convention at this time.

We encourage a "No" vote.

n

Along with the ballot initiatives there are many races to decide during these mid-term elections, ranging from the local level to the U.S. Senate. Of course, the balance of power in the U.S. House and Senate is in play.

We encourage you to educate yourself on the issues and candidates and make your voice heard on Tuesday, Nov. 8.